It’s not over yet, Jammie Thomas: RIAA appeals damage reduction

The RIAA has filed an appeal against Jammie Thomas, who shared songs over a …

The Recording Industry Association of America has appealed a judge's decision to slash the damages award levied against Jammie Thomas-Rasset for copyright infringement from $1.5 million to $54,000 one month ago. The reduction in the amount of the award spurred the RIAA to question whether certain terms in the Copyright Act were misinterpreted and need further examination—specifically, the word "distribution."

Thomas-Rasset and the RIAA have been fighting the same copyright battle since 2007 over 24 songs she shared over the KaZaA P2P network. At first Thomas-Rasset was ordered by a jury to pay $1.92 million, or $222,000 per song. A second trial ended up with a $1.5 million verdict, which federal judge Michael Davis then slashed to $54,000 total one month ago, saying the higher amount was unconstitutional.

Now the RIAA is appealing the case in the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis, saying that the court's failure to classify Thomas-Rasset's actions as a "distribution" under 106(3) of the Copyright Act wouldn't deter her (and others, presumably) from repeating her actions and violating the Copyright Act again. The RIAA is hoping to vacate the jury's verdict based on the interpretation of "distribution," which would result in a third trial.

This is absolutely amazing. I'm a bit confused by RIAA's tactics here, are they trying to set some kind of precedence? As in "worded this way exactly" precedence?

The only precedence I see out of all of this, is thus : Defend yourself, and spend millions doing it. You could always take the easy way out and just pay us the settlement from the letter we sent you. And that quite literally sickens me more than any damage award, no matter how a jury took certain words.

Of course its not over. The RIAA can't accept anything that even looks like defeat; they need absolute crushing victory in order to make what looks to them like a very effective example, but which will in reality do almost nothing.

When will they just give it up. First, they are never going to get what their grandiose self-delusion believes they are entitled to. They're not even going to break even on legal fees. Second, setting a precedent against "piracy" is not going to turn back the hands of time to were unit sales was the "center" of the music industry. Sorry, we gave to the chance to "catch up", but neither time nor progress stops for anyone.

This is absolutely amazing. I'm a bit confused by RIAA's tactics here, are they trying to set some kind of precedence? As in "worded this way exactly" precedence?

I think it goes back to their "making available" argument. In the second case the judge decided that simply making files available online does not constitute distribution. This makes it harder for the RIAA to win cases, as they must produce evidence that distribution actually took place, so they want the precedent overturned.

How come a court hasn't simply said, "Appeal denied" yet and let this poor woman get on with her life. Innocent or guilty this is one woman who has had a multibillion dollar corporate conglomerate make her life a living hell for going on a decade and who will never own a penny she makes again until the day she dies and her kids will probably still be in debt... for doing something tens of millions of people do every single day with no punishment... This sounds to be to be cruel and unusual and even the most dystopian science fiction writers would have found over-the-top.

Of course its not over. The RIAA can't accept anything that even looks like defeat; they need absolute crushing victory in order to make what looks to them like a very effective example, but which will in reality do almost nothing.

Which goes to show how out of touch the RIAA is... most people would find $54,000 pretty damn crushing. Not the RIAA lawyers, of course, that's just chump change to them.

I understand that the RIAA has to go on in this case to keep it's credit in legal standings, but let it end already. Crushing anyone (as a corp.) looks bad and crushing someone having trouble even defending themselves is a new low. It wins you no credit.

IANAL, but maybe this time the courts can conclude "distribution" in the Copyright Act means directly benefiting financially from disseminating specific copyrighted works as the only reasonably way RIAA could possibly be "injured" by P2P networks.

Why did this Norwegian guy didn't have a grudge against greedy corporations that bleed people to death ? I bet nobody would have shed a tear if the RIAA/MPAA headquarters got bombed and all their CEOs and lawyers had been shot.

I believe the judgement was still $54,000.00 too high. They deserve nothing.

Since they want to call it theft, the damages should be brought in line with shoplifting laws. In Florida you pay roughly 7 times the value of the item stolen. So 24 songs at $1 a pop times 7 would equal $168. There ya go, justice served.

How come a court hasn't simply said, "Appeal denied" yet and let this poor woman get on with her life. Innocent or guilty this is one woman who has had a multibillion dollar corporate conglomerate make her life a living hell for going on a decade and who will never own a penny she makes again until the day she dies and her kids will probably still be in debt... for doing something tens of millions of people do every single day with no punishment... This sounds to be to be cruel and unusual and even the most dystopian science fiction writers would have found over-the-top.